Comments by zauche
Page 1 of 1
Posted on March 25 at 4:14 a.m.
"Some think the fix is to gut the Republican Party of most of its policies, and evolve the brand into a “less extreme” Democratic Party, but such a thought is abhorrent to conservatives who understand that our policies work if and when they are tried."
I'm curious to learn examples the author might name of the GOP brand's polices working.
The Bush/Cheney administration was the last time they were tried. "Deficits don't matter," Cheney declared, even as the nation was plunged into two wars, when taxes were cut so they could not be paid for. Halliburton was the oil field services company Cheney left to return to politics. Much of the war profits were channeled to that company, though others help "privatize" the war effort. The multinational oil companies never got the "oil law" they wanted to guarantee their division of the Iraqi oil fields, the real purpose of the war -- but they gained control of those oil field under contracts nevertheless and run them today.
Meanwhile, the financial corporations ran the economy off the rails with the bursting of the real estate bubble, leaving the huge GOP war debt with even fewer taxes to meet payments. Never letting one of their self-generated crises go to waste, the GOP policy is now to retire that debt by cutting all entitlement (now a bad word) programs, leaving the military/industrial complex untouched and cutting still more taxes -- and, surely, never raising any taxes, ever.
How can it be said those policies work? Perhaps the question is: For whom do they work?
Posted on August 31 at 3:23 p.m.
What was the logic behind the bill's plan to have an administrative law judge conduct a due process hearing, only to provide the school board with a recommendation to fire the teacher if the charges were proved, rather than leave the power with the bench officer to do the firing? This problem arose because it was taking so long to fire a predator/teacher in another part of the state that the school board paid the man a large amount to simply resign. This blackmail angered the public. Would the bill solve this problem? If the judge fired the teacher, then his next step would be to appeal, but he would be out of a job and have no claim against the schools. Under the bill, if the school board were the entity to fire the teacher, then he would have the ability to threaten a wrongful termination lawsuit against the schools, leading to the possibility of paying him a chunk of money to go away, rather than let the matter drag on for years. The bill would have returned the school boards to where they stand today when faced with this rare sexual predator problem. Rather than complain about Williams' abstention, it might be worth wondering why the author and his allies had not addressed and resolved that concern (and others) by the time it reached the Assembly Education Committee. It simply was not a well-reasoned bill.
Posted on April 29 at 9:06 a.m.
What's with the emphasis on the "I'm confused" statements attributed to Jana Zimmer? She's practiced law in the real estate area for years, both in the private and public sectors, and I suspect the tone of her comments reflected her frustration over the lack of facts upon which to base an opinion, for or against, rather than a scatterbrained inability to make a decision. The panel's refusal to rubberstamp a deal that fails to pass the smell test is admirable: the system works. The matter was only continued, so Mr. Caruso's opportunity to show cause for the reassessment was preserved: the system is fair.
Posted on December 5 at 2:30 p.m.
Like everyone who has written a comment and who also knows Jeff Johnson, I find it difficult to reconcile the man I've come to know over a period of 25 years with the man portrayed in the Sheriff's press release. Not once in all my dealings with him did he ever send the slightest vibration of having the capability of doing something wrong, let alone something as evil as what he is accused of doing. His many friends will stand by him as he goes through this ordeal, to judge by what has been said, since we all have had the same shared positive experience with Jeff.
Page 1 of 1
Previous Month
Posted on May 16 at 6:18 p.m.
The elimination of two and a half years of construction -- and the accompanying traffic delays and congestion and negative impact on the economy of the whole area -- is well worth looking at as a reason to revisit the question. If, as Mr. Egenolf suggests, there is objective evidence that the safety concerns advanced by CalTrans are misleading, if not downright anecdotal, then I'd say that good cause exists to swing the decision in favor of David.
Why the ad hominem attack? This is not a one percent versus ninety-nine percent issue. (If it were, the one percent would be seeking the right to build helicopter pads on their Montecito estates, not squabbling over freeway exits.) We all depend upon a healthy local economy, kept healthier if we can avoid two and a half years of freeway construction.
On Sleep with Dogs, Wake with Flea Powder